Comments

Interesting poll especially because of the comparisons with other politicians. But as the article states, Sanders will be 79 years old on 2020 inauguration day.

And I looked it up: The oldest president to assume office is Donald Trump, who was 70 years, 220 days old when he assumed office. Ronald Reagan was the oldest in office, at the age of 77 years, 349 days when he left office.

Strange poll - Gorsuch is a "politician"? James Comey? Kellyanne Conway? They seem to be drawing on either geriatrics or side players in the circus, which may be that there's no new blood coming along, or just that getting the media's attention beyond its current fixations is impossible.

I remember back when the guys on the bench were the old ones and the ones in Congress and largely presidents were typically younger. (Ike was the "old guy" - with Reagan, Bush Sr, & Trump he's practically a pimply teenager.

BTW - from the 82% of voters who thought the debates a factor, Trump won 50%-47%. So what does "popular" mean across the spectrum, and how does it line up with values & issues?

Blacks have the most favorable view of Sanders at 73%, BUT 80% of Democrats have a favorable view of Sanders? How that happens is unclear to me

On a more practical level, John C. Lewis mentored and support Ossoff in Georgia. Ossoff may actually squeeze out a win in the head to head race. I am unaware of a Sanders supported candidate who actually won.

Guess he has 95% with white Democrats then... Bernie's favorability is 80% with Democrats? strains credibility, but maybe. Do I like Warren better than Sanders? sure. Anyway, from the same polling group, only 20% of Democrats want Bernie as their candidate in 2020 - more than anyone else, but still, everyone's pretty certain they want none-of-the-above/something-new-but-something-blue. Then again, I thought we'd have someone besides Hillary as of 7 years ago, and it didn't happen.

My guess is most Democrats would prefer a new face in 2020 over Bernie for three reasons: 1) Bernie will be 79 in November 2020. 2) Bernie is not a Democrat. 3) Bernie lost to Hillary in the primaries last year. My guess is that more Democrats chose Bernie over every other Democrat because: 1) Our political views are most closely aligned with his. 2) He is recognized as an honest and principled leader.

Here's how this can happen RMRD. The poll says that 80% of all Democrats have a favorable view of Bernie. Let's assume 80% of each identified ethnic group within the Democratic party also has a favorable view, i.e., 80% of all blacks, 80% of all Asians, 80% of all whites etc.

73% of all blacks have a favorable view of Bernie. Assume 91% of all blacks are Democrats. 80%X90%=73%.

68% of all Hispanics have a favorable view of Bernie. Assume 85% of all Hispanics are Democrats. 80%X85%=68%.

62% of all Asians have a favorable view of Bernie. Assume 78% of all Asians are Democrats. 80%X78%=62%

And so on.

I recognize these assumptions are flawed. For one thing, if they were accurate, no non-Democrats would have a favorable view of Bernie and we know that he is very popular among independents. For another, he is probably viewed favorably by a higher percentage of white Democrats than Democrats of color. But, given that Americans of color are more likely to be Democratic party members, it makes perfect sense that higher percentages of them in toto are favorably disposed towards Bernie.

Regarding Ossoff's more conservadem leanings, it's true he has a good shot in a conservative affluent suburban district and that's great. I hope he wins. I'm very sorry he wasn't able to eke out 50% last night.

In the end though, Democrats are going to need a consistent progressive populist message and uncompromised messengers to take power back.

Since 2009, conservative and centrist Democrats have been losing elections with numbing regularity. There have been some progressive populist winners who won seats in Congress during this period: Elizabeth Warren, Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, and Tulsi Gabbard all come to mind. Senators Tammy Baldwin and Tammy Duckworth both opposed free trade deals and the TPP. NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio also campaigned somewhat fitfully as a progressive populist who would take on Wall Street. As an anti-trade Demcocrat, Sherrod Brown won reelection in 2012 in increasingly red Ohio.

Isn't that a reason to consider changing tack to build a coalition that can win given the new gerrymandered districts?? Or do you plan on just losing forever and blaming it on gerrymandering??

I don't get what the plan is. Getting better turnout from people from the current coalition isn't going to win you new districts. It definitely won't win you back the majority. Something** has to change in terms of strategy.

I don't see what appeal Democrats can make to districts that were created to produce Conservative voters. At the end of the day, only redrawing districts will have impact. GA-6 appears to be populated with well educated people who may be more open to discussions with more Liberal politicians. Ossoff may win.in the runoff.

Yes. They are using "political figures" rather than politicians. And I kind of like that because it tells me more than "who would you vote for?", an entirely different question that doesn't really hint at what people are thinking but is just about horse race. Just because people find people interesting characters with interesting things to say doesn't mean they would vote for them and vicey versa. Who is :"popular" is about trends.

With Bernie, I think people like to hear him out because of his honesty and the whole iconoclast thing. Vanilla politicians are rarely called "popular". Those that blather cold bland prepared talking points are actually some of the most unpopular, hence the hatred of "Congress". He's different that way. Independents are often "popular", they don't toe any lines, just their own.

So not politicians. How about Arnie, Megyn Kelly, Elon Musk, LiLo, Larry Ellison, Alex Jones, Jimmy Kimmel, Garth Brooks, Coachella vs that town in Missouri? Probly thru likes Cambridge Analytica can map this all out for us in detail.

Just following up on my previous post: One of the things that Christopher Hayes interview with Perez and Sanders did is to showcase how dedicated Sanders is to providing a political analysis of the contemporary economy and the contemporary US. I don't think we on the left sufficiently appreciate the significance of that. While there is no doubt that Sanders's positions aren't nearly as left as many would like, his real contribution, it seems to me, has been to resurrect a way of thinking that looks at wealth, poverty, class and culture, through a lens of what the state does and what capital does, to a story of the long history of American political economy. Not a story that naturalizes the economy but a story that politicizes the economy. You may disagree with his analysis or think that it comes up short, but that misses the point. The last major political figure who wasn't a Republican who had a narrative about the American political economy was Bill Clinton. It wasn't a left or even a political narrative at all. It was about the naturalness and inexorability of globalization, where the only thing the state could do was promote education and skills development: that was it. (Most Democrats today think that an analysis boils down to a lot of policy talk.) Sanders's analysis, whatever its flaws, is much closer to a left analysis insofar as it focuses on class and state power. I really think it's impossible to underestimate just how explosive that is on the contemporary American scene; it's a language this country has not heard from its elected leaders since, I would say, the 1930s and 1940s. Parts of the Civil Rights Movement and left Democratic establishment in the 1960s (the Bayard Rustin wing of the party and movement) did as well, but in terms of elected leaders, it really began to thin out after the 1940s.

Struck me as true. Making sense of the economic problems the country faces and framing them in a way that renders the problems soluble, and makes the proposed set of solutions look like a positive change in direction for the economy. That was not salient for me in Clinton's campaign. And to all appearances, it remains lacking in the pitch for the DNC that Perez has prepared:

So humor me and tell me how you do that with Hillary's $30 billion proposal to remake Appalachian coal country, as just 1 example - what's the missing ingredient(s), how do you think we take all our wonkish policy papers and turn them into exciting sound bites for the masses? Or am I missing something, the us vs. them fighting-against-the-man or....?

Sure. But I don't think that is true, nor is it a version of what has been happening that I think these swing voters in swing districts would buy. I won't claim to having my finger on the pulse of the swing-state swing voter, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. But my rought take is that they watch a trillion dollars get funnelled to the banks that just swindled them out of a house, they watch health care costs keep rising while they are dying faster (that famous statistic about wwc lifespans having peaked), jobs less attractive and less secure, college costlier and less useful, it all doesn't pass the sniff test. I don't think you just go in and say, all of this is just the natural course of things, here is a little tax break to make things better. If these people think things are on the wrong track, and badly so, listening to Hillary's 50 bullet point job plan doesn't look like a coherent, cogent solution to what is going wrong. More like fifty little fingers plugging a dam that is bursting. I reread her Michigan economic stump speech just now and it still makes my eyes glaze over.

Not that I'm all too sure of anything. As below, Rmrd seems to hear these speeches very differently than I do. So maybe they resonate just fine, and all the bad press is just beating up on the loser. Anyway, it is all pretty moot now, seems like the plan is to run as NOT DONALD TRUMP, which should be enough to keep people motivated and united until the midterms. But given the post-REDMAP redistricting disadvantage, it won't be enough to retake power. Hence why I think it is worth trying to come up with something more constructive.

But my rought take is that they watch a trillion dollars get funnelled to the banks that just swindled them out of a house, they watch health care costs keep rising while they are dying faster (that famous statistic about wwc lifespans having peaked), jobs less attractive and less secure, college costlier and less useful, it all doesn't pass the sniff test. I don't think you just go in and say, all of this is just the natural course of things, here is a little tax break to make things better. If these people think things are on the wrong track, and badly so, listening to Hillary's 50 bullet point job plan doesn't look like a coherent, cogent solution to what is going wrong. More like fifty little fingers plugging a dam that is bursting.

This glances on a point I've been struggling to articulate. And it has to do with the "core ideology" that Michael Wolraich was talking about on another thread.

What is missing is a clear and concise analysis that explains, in objective terms, why all these different things that you mention, i.e., the banks, losing their homes, have happened and are still happening. Once the analysis is clear, then all the programs can fall out of the analysis. The programs are right, not just because they help people, but because they hook into a correct analysis of what is happening. IOW, they aren't just naive, wishful thinking that, in an ideal world, anyone would support, e.g., free tuition for all.

Minus this analysis, all of Hillary's programs WILL still help, and they are miles better than whatever Trump is doing. But they don't stick with people because there is no core message that people grok is true. This is partly a matter of "messaging," but that term tends to diminish what I'm talking about. When people heard Make America Great Again, it crystallized a lof of things people had been feeling and made sense of them. It was a bad, untrue analysis and it fed on racist fodder, but it reached its audience where they lived.

When you're campaigning, you don't really want people to think. You want them to feel, and THEN think. You want people to say, "That's it! This guy or gal gets it!" Then all the programs become a means of implementing and making real "it." "Change You Can Believe It" clicked in the same way.

The communists/Marxists may be the last group on the left to come up with a core analysis that explained to people why certain things were happening and showed people what they could do about it. Members of the party believed in those ideas, not because "wouldn't they be nice," but because they hooked into the reality they were living. Conservatives often criticize liberals for being pie in the sky. "Yes, we'd all like it if we could get everything for free." Their critique is not that these are bad ideas; anyone would like them. Unfortunately, this is not the way the world works, son, and when you grow up you'll come to understand this. A core ideology or analysis has to explain how and why the world works a certain way (the way you experience it), help people make sense of their experiences, and give them a means of doing something about making their lives better.

Conservatives have two powerful things going for them: For them, politics is all about following the Constitution (of course, it's their view of the Constitution, but they don't say that). In their terms, they aren't importing or overlaying some foreign ideology the way the left does. No: They believe in America's founding document, the document that literally created America, and they want society to closely adhere to it. Hence originalism and textualism and strict constructionism. They aren't trying to change America. They're trying to scrape away all the barnacles that have accumulated over the decades and now obscure what America really is.

Second, they have an analysis of the economy that explains how and why the economy works the way it does. (I'm not arguing for their view, but trying to describe the power in the way they argue.) Reagan didn't put down the left as having "bad" ideas. He said, "Liberals are good people, but they are deluded. It would be nice if the world worked that way, but things don't work the way liberals say things work. We need to get back to reality.") That was the power in their argument: "We're not telling you this is the way the economy should work. We're not saying everyone should have health care. We're saying, this is how the economy in fact works, and you can't fight it for very long without failing." Then they layered on top of that moral arguments about individual freedom, etc.

The left, IMO, needs to generate an analysis, articulate a core ideology, that does the same things. In fact, even the word "ideology" is probably a bad word to use because it says, "We are importing a foreign idea and trying overlay it onto what America really is."

Bernie's proposal for free college tuition was an interesting example and sort of pointed the way, but not clearly enough. It was easy for conservatives to dismiss it as a pie in the sky lefty idea. "Yeah, free everything." Or they dismissed as a European or Canadian import. But the FACT is that free college tuition has a loooong and illustrious history in the U.S. going back to the land grant colleges and, arguably, Jefferson. And I'm thrilled to see Cuomo pick up on it. I hope the results are good and widely publicized.

The point is that "free college tuition"--however you want to describe it--is as American as apple pie, and it was THIS fact that needed to be brought to the fore. Of course, it still could've been dismissed as unaffordable in these days of huge deficits (which also have to be explained by the core analysis). But if voters had come to see it as a part of the soul of America, it would've been much more powerful. That's what conservatives do so well. They ballyhoo their successes and they tie them into the soul of America.

Of course, Bernie didn't really have an analysis either, as Robin points out. He, too, had a laundry list of programs, but at least he had the "millionaires and billionaires" mantra that people could hold onto.

Of course he had an analysis. The "game" has been rigged against average Americans by selfish and greedy people. Together, Bernie said, we can unrig it through morally and intellectually essential programs like tuition-free (not free) public universities, single-payer healthcare, and job protection for ordinary Americans as well as much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Bogieman, soak the rich, a lot of free stuff, and an illusory not-quite jobs program. It's pretty clear and concise, I must admit, but it does less to address the real gist of our future shock than I'm comfortable with.

It's a whole lot of wallpaper when the woodworms are eating the foundations. I just lost 1 shed that way last summer - kept thinking I just needed to sweep & paint more and fix the sagging roof, but a million fireants had other ideas.

More education? The world looks dreary enough - what will another diploma do to right the ship? Another McJob to ponder over? Healthcare meaning an over-trained orderly? Still ain't solved nuttin'.

Thanks, that's exactly it - the New Economy, where I work for free, based only on flattery and likes...

I'll give it a better go when time, but as a quick prelude, I see:

1) addressing the major industry consolidations, where anything that can be automated, downsized, outsourced and basement-bargained will be - Uber as a sick example, Amazon as a still disruptive but more traditional player, and a myriad of new models where workers largely get the shaft.

2) hyper-clustering, where cities rule and attract, rural and semi-rural areas (or even non-prime cities) largely pick up the scraps and suffer the exodus

3) figuring out the right go-it-alone vs banding together mix, as the rest of the globe is suffering the same economic / labor exchange meltdown, and walling off countries & economies will be about as effective as trying to keep auto jobs from migrating to the southern states when not Mexico

4) the great shift from a survival-based footing to a stable global population focused on consumerism (e.g. note the fertility rate shift in the last 50 years, where effectively only a few countries in Africa are still a problem), which ironically will create certain kinds of labor & knowledge shortage even as we fight off the robots. Concomitant with #1, do we install a permanent livable wage per person, much as I once witnessed my Amsterdam squatmates making great use of the dole to pursue great creative engagements on a shoestring, or will Americans just snort it up like cheap meth?

5) the shift from all out war to terror, cyberwar, PR/fake news and other "politics by other means" approaches that are competing against our growing information capabilities and personal privacy & well-being, along with a shift to criminal rehabilitation.

6) the rising demands in light of increased capabilities for healthcare, especially the US' inability & hesitance in reforming, but also other countries' needs to roll out better despite the costs, along with the long-neglected area of psychological health

7) the coming crisis in education where we adapt learning and training to a vastly different world of both home and worklife from that of 1820 when our modern system formed

8) environment, and how to align growth with protection of resources, including rapid response vs fait accompli, turn attention to remaining species and biome, and some thought to sharing critical shared resources as our population plateaus but needs/wants keep growing.

9) income redistribution, that ugly term, along with goods & services amidst the growing new realities of work/leisure balance, productivity, actual need to "work" vs. entertainment and non-essentials

10) expansion on identity, citizenship and migration, and the growing need to accommodate relatively free movement and exchange even in light of security concerns, reasonable resource limits and inherent racist and protectionist tendencies. Includes a step forward on voting, referendums, citizen participation rather than the largely manipulated and wanting ballot box.

11) future "singularity" stuff - far side of science things with rapid adoption to current problems (rather than waiting 20 years for "digital medical records" and watching the slow government progress on the human genome project leapfrogged by a private effort). Information-wise, it means tools to improve our rapid dissection & ingest of information and fill in our native gaps, rather than being fooled time and time again. otherwise dealing with transport, energy, communications,

12) an evolved system of public interest in business, slightly inspired by German works councils, where any larger corporation might have a public representative looking after the public good and general interest, vs. the purely profit-taking, largely non-transparent structures we have today. this would also have a goal of aligning our ambitions and need to siphon off corporate cash for the general good as we also accept the need for effective, efficient companies to provide that cash and make overall jumps in providing goods and services.

[ETA - wasn't really Hillary's take on things - she's history anyway. More my quick cheatsheet on dozen challenges in shape of things to come]

Interesting, thanks Peter. I'm surprised you say - and others agree - that Bernie had no analysis. His whole schtick was that we are in the shitter because economic and political life are dominated by mega-corporations who regard as stake-holders only their owners and their C-suite cadres. So many quotes to choose from but here is his (slightly pissy) concession speech:

I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.

The narrative of his campaign was that the only thing holding back popular progressive policies on a massive scale, and the creation of an inclusive economy, was the resistance of the bipartisan resistance of Washington pols bought and paid for by corporate donors. The very popularity of his campaign put the lie to the claim that these goals were 'unamerican' or 'unrealistic'. Of course it is not something a real democrat could say because they would be upsetting a big chunk of their donor class, and they wouldn't be credible saying it.

Peracles seems to regard this criticism of the status quo as false and immature somehow. He and many democrats still seem to believe in the 90's Clintonian trickle-down policy of empowering corporations through tax-breaks and subsidies, de-regulation and trade deals, destroying welfare and creating retraining programs, and then blindly hoping this translates into more and better jobs. More importantly, the democratic establishment transparently can't get out of the narrow box of policy-making where policy has to first and foremost enrich corporations and only on that condition can it do some social good on the side. If you are an ardent believer in win-win deals with corporate America, then that may be fine. But many people no longer are.

The good news is that it leaves them with a wide berth to do good things on womens and minority rights issues. But the economy remains mired as long as corporate donors dominate both parties.

"Peracles seems to regard this criticism of the status quo as false and immature somehow. He and many democrats still seem to believe in the 90's Clintonian trickle-down policy of empowering corporations through tax-breaks and subsidies, de-regulation and trade deals, destroying welfare and creating retraining programs, and then blindly hoping this translates into more and better jobs. "

Not a terribly fair summary of my positions. I've continually promoted corporations paying more of a fair share (as has Hillary, if I recall correct), though expect that small businesses are more fragile and may need help if we consider them our future incubators and current source of flexible employment, especially in underserved backwater locations. I was highly critical of encouraging the housing bubble, the banks' sales of toxic assets, bailout in 2009 and their subsequent mortgage theft, along with their getting cheap to zero-rate loans to then pass on to consumers and businesses but instead sat on it or sold back to the feds for a profit. I'm continually concerned about how we keep up good jobs even as businesses become more and more efficient and productive. I'm fine with trade deals being more varied, intricate and regulated - I don't think having 182 separate bilateral trade agreements is efficient, and see the EU as providing some real-world model for liberal consistency across different trading partners - not completely perfect, but a far sight better than without. I'm certainly not thrilled about the effective bribes in government and the revolving door for lobbyists, and basically how easy it is to buy a pol with $20-$50K to do permanent damage worth billions. I do think it's possible to get win-win deals with corporate America, but not with any pollyannish approach, and think the continuous daemonization of anything business related is counter-productive.at both a politics level (I want businesses actively supporting liberal goals and candidates eventually) and a policy level (I want general corporate buy-in to the basic social/societal compact, not just the Republican version of "we do business, you give us what we ask").

I think of our 1990's welfare stalemate as largely codifying a permanent black underclass among others and continued doubling- and tripling-down on something that wasn't working, in terms of crime, social integration, escape from poverty, children's security, etc. Perhaps you think it was working well, who knows.

In any case, 90's solutions were for the 90's. Don't Ask/Don't Tell & DOMA in lieu of something worse was a possibly acceptable compromise then - not now. Mass incarceration was beyond what was acceptable then, certainly not acceptable now. Hillarycare was a step forward but too dependent on a then trendy HMO model. I also don't see our policy-making as focused on enriching corporations first, but I do think it a bit blind & counter-productive to ignore business effects. [e.g. a $15 minimum wage won't hurt Amazon or Wall Street, but it'll hurt your local pizza joint, possibly florist, non-profit co-op, etc. How bad, or cushioned somehow, I can't say, but worth thinking about rather than a glib pronouncement to take it to the rich.].

I do think balancing the budget was valuable as a "got to the moon" kind of marker, but not more valuable than focusing on providing a sustainable deficit to provide needed services, and find playing deficit-scold & austerity poker as unpalatable as just throwing money at problems - again I've noted that the US' success is predicated on easy credit and easy bankruptcy which allows more needed risk-taking. Take out the risk acceptance and I think we lose a lot of innovation. If we fund our budget with proceeds from the overall pool, we come out winners.

The "continuous daemonization of anything business-related". Who is doing this? Is someone out there proposing that we nationalize all the means of production? Straw-manning much??

Misrepresentations aside, I do appreciate you laying out your positions. I don't think I need to reiterate my positions on this stuff, ... but in general where I agree on the general Sanders perspective is the stuff about excessive rent-seeking behavior of big corporations, overly concentrated markets, an absence of competitive markets, an unwillingness to tax multi-nationals, etc. And an absence in Washington of any desire to do much about it. And a candidate who is so dependent on corporate money and corporate-inclined mega donors is hardly a credible advocate for changing a system that has enriched her donor base. Her changes to corporate taxation fell hilariously short of adequate, endorsing none of the various proposed international measures to limit off-shoring of profits.

It would be nice if there were a big fat stack of win-win deals with big business available, but there aren't many very credible ones on the table when the politicians supposedly negotiating on the people's behalf is so beholden to the corporations on the other side of the table for his or her future employment, current funding, and past grooming for office.

As for welfare reform, I thought it was generally recognized (with hindsight) as a catastrophe. Many numbers to go by, but extreme poverty doubling isn't an improvement on the problem of a 'permanent underclass'. .

"The "continuous daemonization of anything business-related". Who is doing this? Is someone out there proposing that we nationalize all the means of production? Straw-manning much??"

Why do you discount the threat of the super-rich to American politics? Isn't it clear that they (or those who carry water for their economic interests exclusively) have done grievous harm to the body politic since at least 1980? If nothing else, just consider the ever-increasing wealth gap and how nearly all increases in wealth and income have gone to the top 10% since then with most concentrated in the hands of the 1%. Do you admire the multi-millionaire and billionaire class? Do you aspire to be one of them? Are you one of them? Is your lifestyle dependent on their largesse? I'm just trying to understand why you are so solicitous of their feelings and sentiments

Better examples available I'm sure if I had the time & inclination to go digging.

Not sure what I am supposed to do with this. What is the source and context? Sounds like someone who feels their correspondent gives a special place to the interests and priorities and preferences of the super-rich. And feels that their correspondent is wrong to do so. Devoid of context sounds pretty reasonable to me. But you have me at a disadvantage without any link or context. So take that as my first reaction, although I reserve the right to take back my reaction and malign you for foul and heinous entrapment if it turns out the quote is from Hitler or Justin Bieber

Yes, Bernie had an analysis, but it was a puerile analysis in which the world was divided into good guys and bad guys and that division determined everything else. Maybe that analysis is correct, but I never found it satisfying or convincing, even as I was sympathetic to it. I did vote for Bernie in the primaries.

I'm having trouble putting my finger on "it" directly, so let me try this example: the $15 minimum wage. I favor it, possibly with some adjustments for regions where it poses a REAL hardship to businesses. REAL, as opposed to the phony, hardship business often brings up.

So here's how this conversation goes when I'm talking to conservatives. They'll post an article about McDonalds's plans to replace most of its restaurant staff with machines that cook the burger, take your order and money, give you change, and "hand" you the burger. And then they come with the coup de grace and say, "If you guys keep pushing for a $15 minimum wage, you are forcing business to go in this direction (sooner)." IOW, you think you're fighting for workers, but in fact, you're putting them out of a job (sooner).

To which I say: "Bullshit. That little word "sooner" holds the key. McDonalds isn't just now planning to replace workers with machines to save the extra $8 an hour (or whatever it is) that a $15 an hour minimum wage would cost them. No. They want to save the whole shebang: the salaries, benefits, absences, training, uniforms, and the inefficiencies that inevitably come with human workers. And they've been planning this for a while now. They just don't want to pay the extra freight of a higher minimum wage WHILE their plans to replace works altogether gurgles toward implementation.

And to be fair, I don't think we can blame these franchise owners for wanting to dramatically cut costs, increase quality, and boost profits. It's easier to blame them IF we're not franchise owners and don't face these choices ourselves. But regardless of what "we" do--we can stick with good ole human labor if we want to--we can't expect other owners to follow suit "out of the goodness of their hearts." Expecting others to do things out of the goodness of their hearts is religion or utopianism. I believe Marx criticized this impulse, too. There's a reason utopian communities tend to die out.

Seen in this light, the fight for a $15 minimum wage is "fine," but addresses only the fringes of "what work will be like" in the coming decades. It's not a deep analysis that addresses the core of the challenge: How do we help, or enable, all of our people to thrive in this new world of work? We see it coming; some of it is here already. It isn't really the product of evil minds (or maybe you can make a good argument that it is, in which case I have to make some adjustments here). It's the product of "new technology" and the new capabilities technology brings. And even if you hate this outcome (automating McDonalds franchises) everyone LOVES other outcomes stemming from the SAME technology, e.g., remote surgery.

By now, workers get this at some level. They have their backs up against a wall, but they don't believe that coal is coming back. They know what natural gas is doing. They don't like their streams being polluted. Maybe they can get some relief if we start exporting coal like crazy, but other countries also see what burning coal does to their air. Some countries are more willing to pay that price, but eventually, we ALL know coal's best years are behind it. But coal miners are trapped. This is all they know. This is the only option for a high school dropout to make $80,000 a year in the mountains of Kentucky and West Virginia. So they go with the guy who at least hears their plight and promises to do "something" about it, even if, in their heart of hearts, they know there's little he can do. They just don't want to feel like they're eating the dust of the elites motoring off into the sunset of a new economy and leaving them textbooks on global warming.

So here's my point: On the one side, we have our values. On the other side, we have the reality of what is happening to work in the 21st century. Good solutions have to blend the two, and the politician or political party that manages to do that will be in power for a very long time. It will be constantly analyzing a changing reality and getting out in front of it with relevant proposals and hedges in case things don't turn out quite the way they think. To my mind, Bernie was heavy on values and light on an understanding of where our society and economy are going. His $15 an hour proposal was the thinnest of band-aides. Important, yes, but it didn't touch the core of the problem. And only temporary because, let's face it, $15 in NYC is NOT a living wage. He gave the voter a clear "enemy," which is a good sales technique. He said, "You're getting screwed by people who just don't care about you." That's true to some extent, but not to a large enough extent. IMHO.

Underlying all of this is an argument about how malleable the economy (and society) are. Extreme conservatives paint the economy and society as running according to strict, almost physical, laws that must be obeyed or else disaster ensues. A car engine just won't run on water, no matter how much you want it to. On the other side are extreme progressives who seem, at least, to think that we can remake the economy and society in any way we desire and it will work fine. The truth, I think, is somewhere in the middle.

The successful politician and party have to convince voters that they "get what's really happening." They are clear-eyed and not sugarcoating things to win votes. At the same time, they have to prove to voters that they have the voters' backs. They are looking out for them. Life ain't no crystal staircase, but they are there to help out when the going gets rough. These two things have to be combined in a compelling message and compelling proposals that convey some real emotion along the way.

So PP, in his list above, is getting at some of this, but his list lacks cohesion. He did it quickly, so this isn't a complain, just an observation. What do all these list items have in common? How are they connected? What is the central thought--that is half analysis and half action program--that conveys all these points the way a seed conveys the full grown tree in potentia? And conveys them in a way the average person can grok.

Just to come back to messaging. No one knew exactly what Make America Great Again meant. But it conveyed "something" that spoke to people in a way where they were able to fill in the details for themselves and hit the truth of it. Same thing with "Change we can believe in." What did it mean? "Hope" and "change" were so open-ended and general, they lacked any clear content, but still conveyed something, still conveyed content, that people were able to hear and fill out themselves.

2) Rather than McDonalds, I'd rather talk $15/hr minimum wage mentioning say the local Chinese restaurant, corner grocer, tackle shop counter help, tour guide, laundromat, non-Starbucks cafe, diner, physical therapist, music club, notary, hair salon, taxi driver, construction company, rental agency, equipment rental, Subway, etc., say in someplace like Topeka KS or Macon, Georgia or Salem, Oregon. I'm not against the idea that people earn minimum of $30K a year, and it's possibly useful putting that stake in the ground & figure in people's heads, but doable across-the-board? I'm doubtful, and I'm also concerned about the ill-will that that would bring vs. a bit lower that might make a successful target for both workers and small business owners. (if it was just big business, I'd be less concerned)

I am open to evidence on various sides of the debate. I remember Bucky Fuller noting many times that the argument for some car company to give raises to their workers was that they'd then have money to buy new cars, which is one effect (not the only), it appears for Seattle.

I see your points here. They seem right. My point, though, is that the minimum wage issue should be a relatively minor (maybe a bad word) or subsidiary consideration within a much bigger or deeper analysis.

As it is now, it occupies its own space on the plank as if it weren't connected to many other things, and people fight over it at that level. "Agin' it...for it."

Even at 30K, for a family of four, it's not great and we should be trying to move people up the ladder and prepare them for the changes in the work place now aborning.

I do think people should be able to earning a living at the minimum wage, but it should be seen as just one smallish piece of the puzzle.

You tell out-of-work coal miners that they and their children and their parents are as entitled to health care and a great education as the Wall Street shysters. You call for a trade policy that works for them not for Beijing Communists. You insist that the coal companies that befouled their once beautiful mountain state provide jobs cleaning it up.

From the Bluefield (WV) Telegraph:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders made a return trip to McDowell County Sunday afternoon, telling a town hall meeting audience that he will continue to stand up for working people and fight injustice as well as tax breaks for the rich. . . . Sanders entered to a rousing applause and sat with several area residents, who rotated during the taping segments.

I don't disdain progressive populists - I like LaFollette and Huey Long and Jesse Jackson and Vaclav Havel and in some ways admired Hugo Chavez e.g. for his anti-poverty use of oil money (but not his successor), etc, etc. I'm less than receptive to Sanders for very practical reasons - I don't think many of his ideas are well thought through so that they stand to do as much damage as gain, and I don't think he has the temperament to hammer out the deals that'd need to be struck.

But I guess what both you and Obey are telling me is a plan like Hillary's won't work without a bogeyman, an evil company, a bank, some Chinese factory, the scourge of capitalism... we can't just design a solution around a need and pitch it like that - we need an existential struggle. There's still a debate whether Havel should have been as forgovong as he was, but it set the tone for a post-wall unity looking forward with energy and enthusiasm rather than backwards with bitter regrets and recriminations.

NCD - we see and hear the same thing but our minds process what we observe very differently. I didn't find a quote where Bernie says "I will stand up" for West Virginia. I did find this quote: “What we need to do is stand up together as a big family and demand justice for all of the people and not let those who want to divide us get away with it[.]” (Emphasis supplied.)

Do you disagree with this message. Do you believe Democrats have stood up for West Virginians over the past 25 years?

Yes they did except when they were sending manufacturing jobs overseas and promoting fracking as a "clean" alternative to coal and bailing out banks not homeowners and cutting welfare that many depend on and proposing cuts to social security and opening up federal lands to oil drilling and letting coal companies lop the tops off their mountains and foul their water and air. http://appvoices.org/2011/01/21/impacts-of-coal-101-mountaintop-removal-...

You're promoting coal and complaining about fouling air&water at the same time?

Coal 101 - Wyoming outproduces all of Appalachia (50% more) with 1/6 the people, and people aren't putting up with soot and lung disease the way they used to. It's over - it was good and important while it lasted. Barbers used to pull teeth without novocaine - it was fine and necessary then, not so much now.

Even (especially) China's revised its plans. I remember all the pollution in LA in the early 80's, the yellow skies, often burning eyes, the days when the inversion layer would lift and you could see the horrid funnel of fog sucked up through the pass - really shocking stuff. We shipped that off to China instead, cleaned up our own backyard, and 40 years later China's cleaning its own up. Back to coal? It's part of the problem, why China has 10 of the most polluted cities in the world.

Giving obscenely simplistic and self-defeating solutions for stuff isn't progressive. Tackling the hard problems with care, innovation, creativity and the right resources is.

Yeah I'm getting a little tired of reading about wondrous coal mining jobs on this site. In the 20th century, it was one of the major tragic themes for literature, drama, journalism, et. al., almost one of Dante's circles of hell. And now all of a sudden it's a glorious well paying job. It's like this: what the hell? I think it was in a recent SNL sketch where a coal miner says to Trump: but we didn't say they had to be coal mining jobs, it could be another kind of job. But they didn't need to do that skit, I'm pretty sure there's quotes from actual former miners basically the same thing in some of the stories I posted. Not to mention the fact that Trump is proposing helping coal companies that still are quitting coal as fast as they can and continuing to lay off people.

But then you have to talk about alternatives for THESE people who can make $80,000 a year up in the mountains or down in the valley with at best a high school education. They aren't "wondrous coal mining jobs." They are good-paying jobs where these folks live. That's enough.

We've got another Peter on this site who is wont to basically argue coal mining is wondrous, that is more what I was referring to, it was like he was being echoed here.Furthermore, both PP and I have been posting news stories that: that just ain't possible! Those coal companies, they all have plans to leave coal behind too. Do we really want to make coal a government sponsored industry just for a few jobs? Because the for-profit people don't want to have anything do with it.

Trump could have made them that voted for him very happy with a couple major infrastructure projects in the general hood. Do straight out pork barrel unashamedly, like this promise actually was.

Edit to add: on the "where they live" point. Natural resources like rich deposits of minerals don't last forever in one place and people who bank on them have to eventually migrate or change their mode of living, all through human history.

Yes, of course, you're right. Somehow I got in the middle of this convo without knowing where I was. Oh well.

But if you're going to be president, you have to care about all of the people and try to help all of the people. In the case of coal country, the help needs to be other kinds of good-paying jobs. Folks need to feel that you're thinking about them and trying to find ways to help.

Hillary was unfairly maligned for a comment that was inaccurately reported, but was probably too wonkish to appeal. You have to start with the point that you care, and THEN move on to how you're going to do something that really helps them.

Miners know coal is on its way out. You have to be clear about it with them without turning coal into some kind of malignant, evil industry. Then you move on to concrete plans that show you not only care, but have been thinking about what to do. Solicit their feedback, etc.

Trump just sold them on the fairytale of coal's return. Maybe exporting coal could help them, but I don't even know about that. China's already figured out how coal fouls the environment, big league.

Sanders isn't a team player so I'm not on his team. 80% of dems might like him but you can count me among the 20% who don't. He can purely stand alone for all I care because I will never get behind him. Now you can tell me like you did PP that I hate progressive populists since your standard is one must like Sanders to be progressive. But I am a far left liberal. I just don't much like Sanders and I never have. Even before the primary.

Sanders did well with mostly white voters. When he talks identity politics, he has lost me. Clinton came across to me as having a plan. Sanders had a pipe dream. Perez "word salad" sounds like a normal politician to me. I trust Perez based on work in the Civil Rights division more than I trust Sanders to do something concrete.

Kristin Gillibrand has voted against more of Trump's cabinet appointees than Sanders.

Do you think the people want a "normal politician"? Is that why Trump got elected? Bernie apparently didn't vote on the Commerce Secretary. Does that really matter to you RMRD? Why? You say you trust Perez because of his work in the Civil Rights Division. He did good work on voting rights without question but he also stymied prosecutions against big banks for fraud and currency manipulation. Perez also afforded culpable big banks a special dispensation over the objection of Maxine Waters whom you trust and with good reason.

As Secretary of Labor, Perez staunchly supported the TPP. Do you believe that the TPP would have been good for working people? Did labor unions support it? What about African-Americans, how have they fared under the "free trade" regime championed by the Clintons, Barack Obama, and Tom Perez?

As Steve Jobs and countless others have noted, you don't succeed by giving people "what they want" - you do it by figuring out what they need and then help them want it.

I don't think people give a damn about TPP - they care about what kind of jobs they have and what they're able to afford, and if unhappy with the latter, they take it out on the former. Perhaps TPP is bad, perhaps it isn't - it's not the point. They don't go to bed at night saying "that damn TPP, it's taking our jobs". They say "my fucking job sucks, and I can't even afford to get the car fixed now, and if I bitch about it, they'll shitcan me". Which is why half the time Democrats come out sounding like prima donnas when they try to connect with the average joe. You & I read the news and blog - they don't. They drink beer and go to Little League games, sometimes church, or just stay at home and watch TV. If you're lucky you can drop a meme or issue in their laps to get pissed about, but it can be one as easy as another. The reason Trump gets to them is he hits their buttons in the 7 seconds they actually pay attention, the modern elevator pitch.

By the way, if you're competing with the obvious, you're competing against everyone else who can spout the obvious. Being different offers a way for the message to cut through. There are 100 Republicans sounding off on conservative issues that Dems can't compete with. Sure, in a primary, they might cross over to screw things up, but in the generals they go back to being Republicans. But if the Dems freshen it up from the same old same old, maybe there's a couple to peel off. But still, is that message 1960s Cuban socialism and Teddy Kennedy liberalism, or something a bit fresher? Those more progressive seem to recognize that Hillary's approach was a bit stale, but don't seem to grasp the same for last year's surprise hit. Me, I'm always looking to trash my record collection and move on to something new.

Most working people cared about the TPP because it would have worsened their already precarious economic circumstances just as NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN for China, etc., have harmed them. It doesn't take a genius to understand that, ceteris parabis, employers will choose to operate where workers are paid <$1 to operating where workers are paid >$10.

Most workign people know nothing about any of these acronyms aside from the spoonful of rhetoric they've been fed.

How many jobs were created by making it easier to export agricultural and meat products? For cars "U.S. investment topped out at $28.4 billion in 2015 compared with $4.5 billion in Mexico and $1.5 billion in Canada." - is that well-known? US automaker and supplier employment increased the last 8 years in a row. Or from CNN, "The U.S. imported $78 billion of cars and auto parts in 2015 from Mexico. America's overall trade deficit with the country that year was $58 billion."??? (Mexico has twice as many foreign trade agreements as the US, so it's also much easier for them to ship out assembled cars - which profits US stockholders - which now comes from all walks - if not those line workers). Both Japan and Germany have bigger trade deficits with us than Mexico (as does the EU as a whole). The US deficit with Mexico is about 1/6th that with China, but Mexico buys twice as much from us as China. (Our level of trade with Mexico & Canada are about equal).

Meanwhile, how many of those working class heroes realize that TPP was both to counter China's hegemony in Asia, as well as to make it easier for us to sell direct around Asia, thus likely increasing business while keeping jobs close to same? (or losing a half million jobs, depending on whose numbers you believe - highly politicized). YOu might think there's some benefit to increasing the ease and speed of trade, to promote product & service growth (& thus more sales and jobs), but others would disagree.

Are most people aware of which industries drive our exports and which drive our imports, and the other details of US trade? I'd guess most people simply focus on job losses in manufacturing, as that's what's emphasized over and over. And even there, we keep having discussions about NAFTA without tying in the simultaneous shift to CHinese production that dwarfs it - how come?

"Most workign (sic) people know nothing about any of these acronyms aside from the spoonful of rhetoric they've been fed." But you know better PP right? You know what's best for them don't you? You know better than their union representatives and their co-workers and their doctors right? You know better than Bernie Sanders don't you? You know that they're better off competing with workers getting paid $1 an hour. You know that the gig economy has been a godsend for them. You know that single-payer healthcare would be too expensive. How pray tell have you managed to attain this remarkable wisdom? From what particular font of knowledge are you drinking?

You always point out that we are exporting goods and services but you omit the fact that our trade deficit has ballooned as a direct result of the free trade deals you extol. That deficit is a major reason that our heartland has been hollowed out - not the entire reason of course - but a big reason.

Hal.we have had this discussion numerous times. Obama did what he could with the forces he faced. Sanders loses by double digits in a head to head competition with Obama in the black community. Keith Ellison and Cornel West lose by double and perhaps triple digits (100-0) in a head to head contest with Obama.

Perez has his Civil Rights division background. Sanders seems ready to throw blacks under the bus because we are too focused on "identity politics". You talk about building coalitions yet you shove Sanders in our faces like he doesn't emit any stench in the black community. Perez is the reason that blacks would show up to discuss the coalition if Sanders has to be in the room,

Sanders and Perez will be trying to garner votes. Go for it. Do not for one minute believe that the black community is happy with Sanders. The lack of trust was proven in the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Maxine Waters, John C. Lewis, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton would beat Bernie Sanders in head to head competition in the black community. Heck, Kristin Gillibrand could be fine tuned to poll better than Bernie Sanders in the black community.

Blacks are pissed. Sanders and his BFF Cornel West helped Trump win is the feeling of some in the community. Sanders' repetitive "millionaires and billionaires" speeches are as angering as Trump's "Make America Great Again". Both Trump and Sanders have no plan. Sanders wants single payer, which is nice, but health care is hard and single payer will not be easy. Free college is hard. When I hear Warren Waters, Lewis, the Obama's, I'm putting on my armor to fight. When I hear Sanders, I get the sense that this crazy old fool is going to get me killed for nothing.

We have discussed this repeatedly. Hopefully Perez and Sanders can switch some votes. I am not optimistic.

I would also note Sanders got 2.4 million votes in California, not the whitest state in the union, losing by only 350,000 or so. Yes, he had more traction with whites, but it wasn't that homogenous.

Anyway, as TMac notes, this is all quite counterproductive. I'm only concerned about what we need to do policy-wise and messaging-wise and orgainizational-wise to win and do a good job. While I can argue about campaign stuff, it's great Sanders got voters enthusiastic or it might have been a real thrashing in November. It's also great that we're largely discussing what to do and many are already out doing it. Not every candidate will crank your or my tractors - in the Big Tent, it's not only multiple consituencies, it's also multiple candidates and policy makers who represent our different interests and viewpoints. Unlike the moronic monolithic cut taxes-and-no-abortion simplicity, we're addressing complex issues for which there aren't braindead programmable answers, so there'll be fighting and differences and what not, and all that's good - it makes for a vibrant party and I sincerely hope a better chance of evolving forward for the next elections.

RMRD - First you claimed that progressive populists don't win. When I identified a number who have bucked the current trend against Democrats, you moved the goal posts. Does this type of response lead to a productive discussion about how we can move forward or does it lead to frustration and irritation?

I began asking which candidates Sanders backed that arose victorious. I received no answer.

I then noted no major enthusiasm for Progressives in general. You supplied some names of winners. I could provide Manchin or Booker as more Conservative or Centrist winners. Donna Edwards lost in the Maryland primary. Russ Feingold lost. You give Tulsi Gabbard as if there is no controversy surrounding her. You give DeBlasio, begrudgingly. I have a bigger problem with Gabbard than with DeBlasio.

Perez and Sanders are on tour to persuade people to vote for Democratic candidate. I wish them well. I am doing nothing to block the effort. I do not see how it will succeed. I don't see Sanders as a trustworthy broker in gaining party unity, I think blacks see him as tone deaf on race and lacking an overall plan.

If Sanders has to be a part of what the Democratic Party does, so be it. I will still be supporting Democrats. You are the one forcing the division.

I would counter with "which contests that Sanders backed were closer than if he hadn't?" We're not guaranteed a win, but the more we put these contests in play, the more likely they are to fall our way, in this cycle or the next or 3 or 4 down the road. It's a long haul that starts now.

Yeah, but just like his group's bickering last summer and fall didn't help our fates, our bickering now doesn't help either - it just drags down the energy when we have more than enough challenges from across the aisle to counter. Donald I'm sure loves us riffing on and on about this stuff - buys him time to steal more money and shove through more nonsense. Time is ticking.

I'm pumped for 2018. I have to turn down the sound when Trump is on. I see the Republicans turn themselves into knots to support Trump idiocy. I am energized by Perez, Waters, Lewis, Warren , etc. Sanders depresses me. I'll be going all out for Democrats. I have acquaintances who love Bernie, I simply focus on where we agree. Sanders is not a deal breaker, he is simply not a spark for enthusiasm.

RMRD - I reflexively push back against any and all criticisms of Bernie, although I have acknowledged in the past several areas where we disagree. Here, you raise a valid point despite my earlier resistance to acknowledging it. Bernie has not been great about picking candidates to endorse and there are a number of examples of this failing.

Most recently, I agree that he should have endorsed Jon Ossoff unless he really had reason to believe such an endorsement would have hurt Ossoff which I tend to doubt is the case.

Like I said Sanders is not a deal breaker for me. Instead of inspiring me, I come away depressed. I feel like he is stuck in the 60s. Sanders had no real ties to people like Maxine Waters or John C. Lewis. I find that remarkable. Most of the time, Sanders is not an issue for me. When Sanders is shoved in my face and I am that I have to accept him, I push back. Perez and Sanders are working together. Keith Ellison is also on board with Sanders and Perez from what I understand. If they can persuade voters, it will benefit the Democratic Party and the country. I simply don't feel the Berne.

There are comments made by some Progressives about Christianity that I find offensive. I do not let those feelings distract from the basic premise that I am likely going to share more things politically with that Progressive than with other politicians. I am not going to refuse to vote for someone because Bill Mahrer, for example, supports them.

We get to express ourselves freely here, and then we press the same buttons on Election Day (in the General Election anyway).

Bernie is popular because he is out there talking about the right policies, it's pretty simple. Jon Ossoff is doing the same thing, he really could win this run-off election, Karen Handel was the woman at the center of the Unfunding of PP craze with the Komen organization. The other problem I keep seeing everywhere I go, whether is it reading blogs or going to the LD Meetings, there is some real hate going on between the Berners and Hillites, and it's wrecking progress.

Eventually, there must be a coming together, and some moving on from the 2016 election. We really have some big opportunities in 2018, and only we can fuck it up royally by never getting along again. The autopsy of the 2016 election should be about regrouping and moving forward. Too much of the autopsy of fault is that everyone else is to blame, "not me of course". The honest answer is, the Clinton Campaign made big mistakes, people who wrote in Bernie or sat out or who voted for Trump made a big mistake too, no ones hands are clean in this, and it truly is time to move on and get it together.

Check out the women of the Nevada State Legislature, this is an example of what we need to do. Let's not forget we are on the same side and we should be strategizing to be ready for 2018. I'll be in Montana in May working for the special election, I'll be volunteering for Rob Quist democratic candidate for the congressional seat because even if we don't win, we fight for every seat.

Then let's talk about the Nevada State legislature, they are at the forefront of some amazing and extremely progressive legislation, thanks in large part to the number of women in office. It is seriously exciting.

I would argue that you are the one who isn't thinking strategically. I suspect an endorsement from Sanders would be the kiss of death for Ossoff in the situation he's in. "Winger liberal Hollywood" money is already going to be used mightily against him. Why are you complaining that he and Sanders are clearly different? He's trying to win a long time Republican district, why would he want to be publicly supported by someone seen as a leftist by such a district? If Sanders were supportive, I can almost hear the local radio talk shows going wild with he's going to bring us the world of Bernie and Susan Sarandon.

The answer to the discussion upthread raised by Obey about gerrymandered districts: If you don;t have the power to fix the gerrymandering yet, the answer is to run candidates as tailored to the district's concerns as possible until your party has the power to start changing districts.There's no getting away from that.

One thing Bernie gets as an Independent: national purity tests don't win much in this day and age. Look at the current GOP, it's a yuge mess of competing coalitions with very different views and priorities.

(Yes, you got it right, I don't agree with the whole Wolraich argument about having a passionate solid message much more than "it's the economy, stupid".Not with only two parties. All evidence of past decades says: big tent nationally. Local races are going to be very different. Sausage is made later in Congress after you get a majority.)

Again you are giving Sanders credit for a strategic move that was not done on purpose.

Sanders is not a deal breaker in my support for Democratic Party candidates, I don't trust Sanders to look out for my interests. My personal tax bill went up under Obama, but I didn't notice any change in lifestyle. I look to Democrats to work to improve the lot of my fellow citizens. I don't think Bernie is capable of identifying candidates who can actually get things done. As noted above "Conservadem" Manchin cares about the health care of retired miners. Kristin Gillibrand has opposed more Trump cabinet appointees than Sanders. Im OK with having Manchin and Gillibrand as Democrats. Neither would pass Sanders' litmus test.

If Sanders can get people to support Democratic candidates, fine. I don't understand why the white working class bought into a conman like Trump. Sanders seems to tap into their wavelength, so let him speak to them. I would note that some argue that blacks should be willing to accept racists in the Democratic Party in order to win. Rubbish. Black voters are used to suffering. We can just stay home rather than openly accept racists.The taste of Spam can be muted with a good Gewurtztraminer. We can eat baloney, noodles, and soup for months if need be. Our suicide rates did not skyrocket after the housing crash because we are used to pain.

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics. Soon, he said, the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court was likely to make it legal for the wealthy to give unlimited sums to candidates, and the only way to fight back was grass-roots politicking and small donations.

...

Sanders had said this before, and each time, he had sparked anger from a center-left ready to accuse him of abandoning women or nonwhite voters. On Thursday, he was set to campaign in Omaha for Heath Mello, a Democrat running for mayor who had previously backed* a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions.

Campaigning for a candidate who is anti-choice?? How “progressive” of him….

The 6th district is a suburb of Atlanta and an amalgam of 3 former districts (gerrymandering, anyone?) in which 1 section went for Trump, 1 went for HIllary, & 1 was largely split, so no, a Bernie disavowal is probably not an obvious benefit, and when I pinged an old very liberal friend on Tuesday he was carpooling several voters to the polls even though he's gerrymandered out of this district now.

From another DKos poster:

We fully know that Ossoff is a progressive. He supports the following:

A woman’s right to choose

Support of small businesses

Fixing and expanding on Obamacare

Protecting civil liberties

Protecting Medicare and Social Security

Criminal justice reform

There are more progressive issues & positions to be had, but I'm not sure what the point of all this was.

Is this a surprise to anyone? I wouldn't expect Sanders to baldly lie and say a candidate that was centrist on economic issues was an economic progressive. Judging by his milquetoast program he is well to the right of Clinton

I'm not sure what the right way forward for the Sanders - DNC relationship is. Democrats seem to see it as a betrayal every time he restates his well-known values and priorities. And Sanders backers boo when the DNC chairman tries to cozy up to him.

Not much surprises me anymore, but occasionally the gift to not open mouth when nothing useful to say would be pleasant to observe. He could have said the obvious as well, "I'm not here to be a litmus test on any candidate/Democrat's politics, but I'm sure Ossoff will certainly be much better than his opponent". Is that so tough?

I'm sure Ossoff already has the votes that Bernie could supply by doing that. I really don't get this team player stuff especiallyi n this situation of taking advantage of an anti-Trump feelings in a GOP district. i repeat: it would hurt Ossoff now if Sanders said anything good about him. Why does it bother you that he speaks his mind If it doesn't hurt? Some on the fence voters might even think: oh, okay, Sanders doesn't like him, that's proof it's safe for me to vote for him.

I also repeat: I think it's Sanders honesty that makes him "popular" even perhaps among people who wouldn't vote for him. And that's the way you get people to listen to new ideas and approaches.

We already have 1 politician known for uncontrollable brainfarts in the name of refreshing "honesty", "tell it like it is", and what all. Since I'm hoping that meltdown leads to replacing him, a bit of brand differentiation would be useful - like "we're the ones who think before we speak". But whatevers, it's not a huge deal.

Ain't much difference from Trump hanging with the GOP. while excoriating most of them his entire campaign. This is the way the U.S.A. is now: two parties no longer serve it accurately. I can't see that changing much with voters being able to pick and chose their own narrative on the internet. Party line voting by the majority is over for the foreseeable future.. People come out to vote for individuals that they feel speak to them, like it or not.

Even though Citizen's United vs. FEC is a major related problem, It's not necessarily the end of the U.S.A. that this is happening:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." -- John Adams, 1780.

So under this test, would Obama qualify as a progressive? At least on two issues you list, he fails. He was prepared to cut social security and the free trade deals he championed harmed many small businesses.

I'm sorry but I don't find one insult in the comment to which you link. Could you identify the insults to which you refer? I do not call you stupid. I do not question your sanity. I do not say that you are selfish or mean-spirited or insensitive. Those would be insults. I do ask why you are so contemptuous of America's workers but your comment which I was referencing inarguably displays contempt for them.

But you know better PP right? You know what's best for them don't you? You know better than their union representatives and their co-workers and their doctors right? You know better than Bernie Sanders don't you? You know that they're better off competing with workers getting paid $1 an hour. You know that the gig economy has been a godsend for them. You know that single-payer healthcare would be too expensive. How pray tell have you managed to attain this remarkable wisdom? From what particular font of knowledge are you drinking?

You always point out that we are exporting goods and services but you omit the fact that our trade deficit has ballooned as a direct result of the free trade deals you extol. That deficit is a major reason that our heartland has been hollowed out - not the entire reason of course - but a big reason.

I'll say this for you PP - you sure can dish it out. But you're not good at taking it are you? I've spent an awful lot of time reading your stuff always questioning whether there was anything of value there. Well, now I know one thing you've taught me. Exactly what the alt-right means by the term "snowflake". Thanks!

Why do you discount the threat of the super-rich to American politics? Isn't it clear that they (or those who carry water for their economic interests exclusively) have done grievous harm to the body politic since at least 1980? If nothing else, just consider the ever-increasing wealth gap and how nearly all increases in wealth and income have gone to the top 10% since then with most concentrated in the hands of the 1%. Do you admire the multi-millionaire and billionaire class? Do you aspire to be one of them? Are you one of them? Is your lifestyle dependent on their largesse? I'm just trying to understand why you are so solicitous of their feelings and sentiments

Soros has done very positive things, Elon Musk is creating very useful breakthroughs, the Gates' have contributed admirably to education et al, Koch Brothers and Mercers have been rather awful. Google is creating some very cool useful things but has some serious negative effects on privacy. Amazon is super convenient but is destroying a lot of mom-and-pops, as has Starbucks transformed the local coffee shop experience. Caterpillar and Boeing are the mainstays of US manufacturing, growing it even, though Boeing is tied in with military subsidies and the production of some less than peaceful fighters et al. All of these have more money than you or I to influence things, and will certainly get a better audience. That said, if it's a matter that affects the employment of 100-200,000 people, they *might* be able to put face time to better use than I could. Do I "admire" them - to some extent for their successes, depending. I don't care about Starbucks; Amazon is interesting for both retail & its cloud business. Soros is great for his East European support and backing for liberal values. Bill Gates is more interesting to me for his pivot to enterprise software and video games, as well as his philanthropy (whether I think he spends the best on any particular area). Elon Musk is amazing for getting both rockets in space and a budding electric car business going when many have tried and short-circuited, plus his battery ideas are far-sighted. Google has changed the philosophy of the times, where information is a quick simple search away, and location services are ubiquitous. I don't much like Apple - some do. I certainly don't give a shit how much money these people have - it's about their creativity & perseverance & unique contributions. Plus yeah, many of these are creating massive numbers of good paying jobs, something I'd think you'd appreciate, presuming they pay their fair share of taxes (Musk being in a rather different zone reliant on subsidies).

& BTW - any of the access these big boys have can be corrupt & needs to be tapered through laws and policies to fit what's healthy for us all. Their ability to shape legislation before anybody else gets to see, their ability to shut down reforms, etc. need to be weeded out, whether effective helpful guys or not.

Great screed. From my discussions with you, though, I know you shouldn't have had to write it!.

Change, it's the only constant (and, as we discussed recently, it really sucks if you're no longer young. The Amazon thing, that's one that's been hitting me hard lately, the disappearance of retail seeming to happen right before our eyes and I am contributing to it, I order from Amazon all the time like most everyone else...nobody here seems to care about those jobs disappearing, only he-man coal mining jobs, who cares about those gals that are dept. store buyers?

I'm far from against more progressive tax rates than we've had for a while, and I don't suspect you are either, but the whole "let's try the DDR totalitarian thing" again and see if it works is real turnoff. (That's why I was shocked by reading about the Melenchon 100% tax proposal, way to kill a country!.) Anyone who thinks this country with its makeup is going to become a socialist dream state anytime soon is just not worth arguing with because: not going to happen in a 100 years.

Let me explain: that's kind of my reason for not wanting to argue with Bernie, too, I feel just let him speak his piece, I don't even believe he thinks half of the things he says are possible, I just see him as just trying to push the Dem party Overton window left before he dies, sees that as his mission. I believe he knows most of what he says wouldn't happen, how can the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional historynot know that? Just wants to shake things up, get people thinking different. I'd even venture another guess: he secretly feels that the Trump win was not necessarily a bad sacrifice to happen, even though it's causing a lot of pain, in this goal of shaking everything up, including both parties. Sure one could do a better job of Overton window pushing, but he's like one of the few volunteering. And the latter is because: you've got to be willing to lose elections to do that. (Comes to mind: Trump was quite willing to lose, too. At the end of his life, too. And about the only thing he was for: shaking things up.)

Not one word you wrote is evidence against the argument that those pushing the economic interests of the 1% have done grievous harm to our democracy. Yes, those who have innovated have been extraordinarily well-rewarded but our nation has enjoyed innovations when the wealth and income gaps were not obscene and when we were fighting poverty effectively. You apparently believe that if we don't let some people accumulate so much money that a thousand generations couldn't spend it we won't get iPhones. Odd idea and utterly at odds with the facts since Gates created M$ and Jobs created Apple when top marginal tax rates were at 70% and we did a much better job protecting American jobs.

Sad - did they have a real point? He supports progressive goals but said something nice about Clinton & something not spendthrift about Washington, so he's off the list? He got Republicans to spend a ton of money & their nearest candidate finished 28% back - sounds great to me - I can see that strategy working across the US - "you may kick my ass, but you'll be 1 tired mofo by the time you finish". Cool. Bodes well for 2018 & rebuilding national strength. Not why they dismiss Nate Silver so much, but he's usually careful about not going out on a limb, especially after November.

New poll news posted at The Hill today, possibly more pleasing to many of this thread's participants:

Democrats are significantly more enthusiastic than Republicans to cast ballots in the 2018 midterm elections, according to a survey released Thursday by left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

Sixty-three percent of Democratic voters said they are "very excited" to vote next year, compared to only 52 percent of Republicans, the poll found. The gap grows even more pronounced among the voters most excited to cast their ballots for House races – 57 percent among Democrats and 38 percent among Republicans.

GOP voters lead Democrats in the percentage of voters who are "somewhat excited" to vote or "not that excited" to vote [....]

Pumpkin Head (nice) is heading for the 100 day mark with no legislation. His Republican Congress has to deal with the debt ceiling. Republicans don't believe in government so they have little talent to actually govern.

on "pumpkin head" I just got to say I think that's too kind, I think of it as something along the lines of the French mon petit desordre chaud, it would actually be more appropriate to call Bernie that!

I think Bernie and his supporters classify people primarily on economic issues. Bernie is luke warm on Ossoff, but wholeheartedly supports an economic populist for Mayor of Omaha despite the candidate's anti-abortion stance. There was an excellent segment on "AM Joy" yesterday with participants that included an NAACP official, Krystal Ball. a black Bernie supporter and Howard Dean. Ball's new book "Reversing the Apocalypse: Hijacking the Democratic Party to Save the World" argues that in order to win elections, Democrats need to focus on economics. Social issues should be in the background. Ball feels that the Democratic Party focuses too much on " white privilege" and isolates white voters. The woman from the NAACP was skeptical. The black man supporting Bernie pointed out that Democrats need to do more outreach to the black community than showing up a month before elections. The NAACP representative noted that the Sanders-Perez outreach tour has not appeared before an audience of majority minority community members to get input on the what the most loyal base of the Democratic Party wants. The segment is available at MSNBC's website. It was an interesting discussion that should be repeated to delve further into the rifts between different segments of the Democratic Party.

Bernie's crusade to radically remake the Democratic Party won't work as long as he doesn't join it. The TV host noted that. If he did very dramatically and assertively join, he could have greater impact, and unite the Party behind him, as it's elder ideological genius.

However, he is highly unlikely to ever do that, he is a critic, a purity angel, a krupt duopoly ranter and not the right quality stuff for effective political party leadership.

Search form

In the News

In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government WikiLeaks in its early years published a broad scope of information, including emails belonging to Sarah Palin and Scientologists, phone records of Peruvian politicians, and inside information from surveillance companies. But by 2016, WikiLeaks had switched course, focusing almost exclusively on Clinton and her campaign.

WASHINGTON — Kara Young, a biracial model who dated Donald J. Trump for two years before he married another model named Melania Knauss, remembers clearly bringing up her race with the real estate tycoon early in their relationship. As with so many issues, he steered the conversation to celebrity.

Trump tweeted about his sadness over the loss of "beautiful" Confederate statues. He again equated a man who fought to create the United States with a man who knowingly fought o destroy the United States. Robert E. Lee could have led the Union Army. His sister's son fought for the Union. 40% of Virginia fought for the Union. Robert E. Lee chose to be a terrorist.

Trump champions the "Lost Cause". It is not surprising that he is unaware of why many of these Confederate statues were erected. Take the Robert E. Lee statue in Baltimore as an example. The statue was erected in 1948. The statue was meant to intimidate black soldiers and sailors returning home from World War II. It served as a reminder to those black men and women that white people were still in control

“Our country’s greatest strengths are the diversity of its people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all. There are troubling events planned in our state in the coming weeks. This is an incredibly painful and difficult time for millions of Californians. For those who are wondering where we stand – the ACLU of California fully supports the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to peacefully assemble. We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.

There were no decent people marching alongside the white supremacists and Nazis. Decent people cannot work in the Trump White House. If you support Trump, you support a racist. You are an enabler. If you work for Trump, you work for a Nazi sympathizer, you are an enabler. Jewish people who work for Trump are working for a man who encourages anti-Semites. Blacks who work for Trump work for a racist who is attacking the black community. Hispanics who work for Trump work for a bigot who called Mexicans racists.

There are no decent political people hired by Trump working in the White House. (General staff like maintenance, kitchen staff, etc are excluded)

WASHINGTON — The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is off to a rocky start.

The Trump administration lectured Canada and Mexico on the failures of the current agreement at an opening news conference Wednesday morning, while behind closed doors negotiators began to seek significant concessions from America’s neighbors.

“We feel that Nafta has fundamentally failed many, many Americans and needs major improvement,” said Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, who is leading the United States team aiming to overhaul the 25-year-old agreement [....]

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao stood shoulder-to-shoulder Tuesday with President Donald Trump, the same man who railed against her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, last week and demanded that the lawmaker "get back to work" on health care."I stand by my man -- both of them," Chao said, when asked by reporters what she thought of her boss's criticism of her husband.

A Los Angeles-based tech company is resisting a federal demand for more than 1.3 million IP addresses to identify visitors to a website set up to coordinate protests on Inauguration Day — a request whose breadth the company says violates the Constitution.